Cross-border ADR

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

This Overview considers cross-border alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR provides a confidential dispute resolution mechanism outside of a court of law, by which a dispute or difference is submitted to an impartial individual(s), either for determination or to assist the parties in reaching a negotiated resolution of their dispute.

ADR is only one consideration when dealing with a cross border dispute. For an insight into the various considerations, see: Cross border considerations—checklist.

Tools

  1. •

    understanding the different types of ADR—there are numerous alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms which may be of assistance, eg negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. For an understanding of the different forms and insight into how these differ from litigation, see Practice Note: What is ADR?

  2. •

    guide to cross-border ADR—when dealing with cross border proceedings, such disputes are generally resolved by means of litigation of arbitration. However, it may be appropriate to consider the appropriateness of ADR mechanisms. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border ADR—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners

Arbitration

The

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Anti-suit injunctions and exclusion of liability (JP Morgan v Werealize)

Commercial analysis: The Commercial Court granted anti-suit injunction (ASI) relief to directors of Viva, a Greek fintech company, restraining JP Morgan (JPM) from pursuing tort claims against them in Greece, as such proceedings breached an implied obligation in a shareholders’ agreement (SHA) not to bring proceedings in jurisdictions where exclusion of liability provisions would not be effective. The court found that clause 33 of the SHA, which provided that ‘no party (nor any of its Representatives) shall owe any duty of care or have any liability in tort or otherwise to any other party (or its respective Representatives)’, contained an implied promise not to sue in jurisdictions that would not give effect to such provisions. The court rejected alternative ASI relief claims based on quasi-contractual arguments and vexatious conduct. This decision demonstrates how contractual immunity clauses can be enforced through ASI even against non-signatory third parties, providing important guidance for commercial drafters on extraterritorial enforcement of liability exclusions. Written by Parham Kouchikali (partner) and Natalia Faekova (Senior Associate) at Taylor Wessing LLP.

Bar report calls for new commissioner to tackle bullying

Law360, London: A formal independent review called on 8 September 2025 for the appointment of a new conduct commissioner and an overhaul of the complaints system to tackle bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the bar amid rising levels of inappropriate behavior in the profession.

Leapfrog to Supreme Court approved (Re Waldorf Production UK Plc)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Following the High Court's refusal to sanction the Part 26A restructuring plan (RP) for Waldorf Production UK Plc, Mr Justice Hildyard agreed to issue a leapfrog certificate allowing the Plan Company to appeal directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Plan Company argued that the Court of Appeal's approach in Thames Water and Petrofac was wrong, arguing that out of the money (OOTM) creditors could fairly have their rights released for nominal consideration where they would be no worse off than in the relevant alternative.

UK Supreme Court publishes fourth annual judicial diversity strategy update

The UK Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UKSC) has published its fourth annual Judicial Diversity and Inclusion Strategy update. The update outlines progress across five objectives: building an inclusive culture, supporting underrepresented groups into judicial roles, increasing Supreme Court Justice applications from underrepresented groups, communicating diversity support to the legal profession, and meeting Equality Act 2010 obligations. Key initiatives highlighted include the launch of the UK Association of Black Judges at the Court. Lord Reed, the Court's President, emphasized the essential nature of judicial diversity for public confidence, while Lord Leggatt, lead Justice for diversity, acknowledged the need to accelerate the pace of change in judicial representation.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note considers when the common law of England and Wales is applied to determine the law applicable to contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is applicable to

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (English courts). There

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Foreign currency claims

Foreign currency claimsThis Practice Note considers the issue of bringing a claim in a foreign currency. In doing so it explains the underlying case law as to whether a claim can be brought in a foreign currency and how to bring such a claim. It also considers how a defendant can challenge a claim
Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note considers when the common law of England and Wales is applied to determine the law applicable to contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is applicable to

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (English courts). There

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Foreign currency claims

Foreign currency claims

Foreign currency claimsThis Practice Note considers the issue of bringing a claim in a foreign currency. In doing so it explains the underlying case law as to whether a claim can be brought in a foreign currency and how to bring such a claim. It also considers how a defendant can challenge a claim